Last year, for the first time in decades, Republicans lost the advantage on foreign policy in a presidential campaign. Exit polls showed that voters trusted Barack Obama more than Mitt Romney to handle an international crisis (57 percent trusted Obama, 50 percent trusted Romney). And of the small number of voters who put foreign policy as their top issue, Obama won by a margin of 56 percent to 33 percent. Part of this, of course, is due to the incumbents advantage. But Republicans, following the setbacks in the Iraq War and Afghanistan, will have a tough job restoring their advantage on foreign policy and national security issues.

Their current actions arent helping. Senator Rand Paul has won accolades from many on the right for his Mr. Smith Goes to Washington filibuster. But however impressive his stamina, we must not forget what he was protesting againstthe use of drone strikes which, when directed overseas, are supported by 83 percent of Americans and when directed against American citizens overseas are supported by 65 percent.

Admittedly, Paul focused on the use of drone strikes on American soil against American citizens who are not combatantshe was clever enough not to make his filibuster about drone strikes per se. But in the process he came across as a bit of a nut. No one imagines that this administration or any other is about to start launching Hellfire missiles in New York or Washington. In fact Attorney General Eric Holder finally issued a letter stating the obviousthat the administration cannot use drones or other weapons against American citizens on U.S. soil as long as they are not engaged in hostilities against the United States.

However, the administration is absolutely right to note that it has the right in extreme circumstances to use military force on American soil. If Rand Paul thinks otherwise, he should come out and explain his objections to Abraham Lincolns use of force to fight the Confederacyor the use of troops to escort African-American kids to school in Little Rock in 1957. Instead of addressing the issue squarely, Paul came up with far-fetched scenarios such as the U.S. government killing Jane Fonda because she was protesting the Vietnam War.

It is all too easy for the nuances of the debate to get lost and for voters to gain the impression that Republicans are against drone strikes in general.

Republicans are only reinforcing this impression of weakness on national security by enthusiastically supporting the sequester that is keeping Navy ships from sailing and Army troops from training. Republican strategists are right that most Americans support the sequester overall by a margin of 61 percent-33 percent, but they should note that by almost that same margin they oppose cuts to military spending.

By indiscriminately embracing sequestration and by making anti-drone noises Republicans are making it increasingly hard to recover the advantage on national security issues that they maintained ever since the 1960s.

This author, and most of the GOP, are guilty of the same things: taking a poll, and then obsessing about how to “get in front” of that poll. In other words, if the American people believe a bunch of bullshit, we must pretend to believe that bullshit too.....

What Rand Paul did was called “leadership.” He was not happy to sit around and just be a thermometer....he was instead trying to be a thermostat....setting the proper temperature to bring the “polls” to him. This is how Reagan did it. This is how Newt did it with the CWA election of 1994. This is what the Tea Party did in 2010.

Our consultant driven political parties have totally lost this concept.....

Bill Clinton perfected the art of looking tough using the cruise missile and bombs from Angels 15. The drone has given Obama and Dems a foolproof way to appear concerned about nat’l security without risking the unpopularity of flag draped caskets at Dover AFB. The fact that drones are more precise and Hellfires have less collateral damage than Tomahawks is a plus for the Dems. Of course the Dems won’t say this but the fact that we’re only killing ragheads is a big plus for the policy’s popularity. I also expect, in the near future if Rand’s dissent spreads, that an admin spokesman will say if Janet Reno had had a Predator at Waco she could have targeted David Koresh and saved the children. And the public will nod in agreement.

The neocon minions of Karl Rove, and the country club republican set are loose!

I think they're going to get their butts kicked this time. A growing number of people are thinking for themselves and aren't concerned about where they disagree with Rand Paul but they damn sure know where they agree.

11
posted on 03/10/2013 8:30:28 AM PDT
by cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)

You got that right! They are in desperate need of a purging from the Republican party. They can join back up with the big .gov dems. There needs to be legislation and a vote that prohibits the use of 'weaponized' drones in the United States. Would be interesting to see how that one turns out.

My veteran friend had a melt down at the VA hospital to the way he was treated, cancelled his appt but forgot to call him. He screamed at everybody and then went home. About a half hour later the police showed up to make sure he was alright, then asked if he had any guns in his home.

"No, I don't officer." If he had said yes, they would have come in and taken them from "an unstable veteran."

This author, and most of the GOP, are guilty of the same things: taking a poll, and then obsessing about how to get in front of that poll. In other words, if the American people believe a bunch of bullshit, we must pretend to believe that bullshit too.....

What Rand Paul did was called leadership. He was not happy to sit around and just be a thermometer....he was instead trying to be a thermostat....setting the proper temperature to bring the polls to him. This is how Reagan did it. This is how Newt did it with the CWA election of 1994. This is what the Tea Party did in 2010.

Our consultant driven political parties have totally lost this concept.....

But however impressive his stamina, we must not forget what he was protesting againstthe use of drone strikes which, when directed overseas, are supported by 83 percent of Americans and when directed against American citizens overseas are supported by 65 percent.

The American people are idiots - proven by the fact they reelected Obama.

“...Yup seeing more and more anti-Paul articles. Rand is going to get the Palin/Newt treatment....”

Yep, for sure. These are the communists’ media “attack dogs”. Their attack tells me Rand really hit a raw nerve with “the pile” in the WH. Go Rand!!! As you state, these dogs did the same to Sarah and Newt. However, this time around, I’m not so sure it is going to work out so well for them. Most people know what Rand was talking about and they don’t want “the pile” to have the authority to order drone strikes on American soil ever, and especially without due process of law. The “dogs” are using a poll that says that the public supports it on foreign soil, but that same poll also shows very little support for it here on U.S. soil. The author of this article is picking and choosing parts of the poll in support of the communist agenda.

23
posted on 03/10/2013 10:13:03 AM PDT
by lgjhn23
(It's easy to be liberal when you're dumber than a box of rocks.)

However, the administration is absolutely right to note that it has the right in extreme circumstances to use military force on American soil. If Rand Paul thinks otherwise, he should come out and explain his objections to Abraham Lincolns use of force to fight the Confederacyor the use of troops to escort African-American kids to school in Little Rock in 1957.

Idiocy has no bounds. Nearly all Civil War battles occurred not on "American soil," but on the soil of a newly created foreign country known as the Confederate States of America. As to those few military confrontations that did occur on "American soil," Lincoln's troops used force not against Amercian citizens, but to repel a foreign army.

Also, when Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne to Little Rock in 1957 and federalized troops from the National Guard, the purpose was not to kill Americans on American soil, but to escort the students and maintain law and order. In other words, this was a police action that ws subject to the Bill of Rights.

Their current actions arent helping. Senator Rand Paul has won accolades from many on the right for his Mr. Smith Goes to Washington filibuster. But however impressive his stamina, we must not forget what he was protesting againstthe use of drone strikes which, when directed overseas, are supported by 83 percent of Americans and when directed against American citizens overseas are supported by 65 percent.

When argumentum ad hominem fails, you can always resort to argumentum ad populum, i.e. "I'm right because my views are popular."

I'd love to find out what leading, loaded question was used in the poll that gave these figures, assuming those figures are even accurate or represent an unbiased sample.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.